9136 20599 1 PB PDF

MATERIALS HANDLING MANAGEMENT:
A CASE STUDY
Guilherme Bergmann Borges Vieira
UCS - Universidade de Caxias do Sul
gbvieira@cpovo.net
Giovana Savitri Pasa
UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
giovanapasa@producao.ufrgs.br
Maria Beatriz Nunes de Oliveira Borsa
UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
maria.beatriz@ufrgs.br
Gabriel Sperandio Milan
gsmilan@ucs.br
Alberto Pandolfo
alberto.pandolfo@marcopolo.com.br
ABSTRACT: The highly competitive environment, linked to the globalization phenomena, demands
from companies more agility, beter performance and the constant search for cost reduction. The pres-
ent study focused on improvements in internal materials handling management, approaching the
case of a large company in the automotive industry. Materials handling is intrinsically associated with
production fow. Because of this, it has direct infuence on transit time, resources usage, and service
levels. The objective was to evaluate, in a systematic way, the impact of implemented changes in ma-
terials handling management on the internal customers perceptions of cost, safety in service, service
reliability, agility and overall satisfaction. A literature review preceded a case study in the companys
manufacturing unit and the questionnaires were completed by 26 employees directly involved in the
process. Analyzing the answers, it was possible to suggest that internal customers understood that the
new materials handling management system enlarged service agility and reliability and reduced costs,
which caused an improvement in overall satisfaction.
Key words: internal handling, material fow, materials management, material handling management, service level.
Volume 4 Number 2 July - December 2011
19
1. INTRODUCTION
There is a strong concern to adjust the supply system in a
company (Machline, 2008) to achieve a higher service lev-
el internally and to the outside customers. This brings to
a higher operational level and even a possible diferential
when compared with the other competitors (Milan, Paiva
& Preto, 2006; Paiva, Carvalho Jr. & Fensterseifer, 2004).
Materials handling management is among many
factors that contribute to improve a companys
performance. The Materials Handling Industry of
America [MHIA] defnes materials handling man-
agement as Material Handling is the movement,
storage, control and protection of material, goods,
and products throughout the process of manufac-
turing, distribution, consumption and disposal.
The focus is on the methods, mechanical equip-
ment, systems and related controls used to achieve
these functions (mhia.org/learning/glossary).
Then it is observed that handling is broader than
Vieira, G. B. B., Pasa, G. S., Borsa, M. B. N. O., Milan, G. S., Pandolfo, A.: Materials Handling Management: a Case Study
Journal of Operations and Supply Chain Management 4 (2), pp 19 - 30
20
simple materials movement, although both terms
are sometimes used as synonyms.
The relevance of materials handling stems from the
intrinsic relationship that it has with production
fow. When it presents an imbalance, there is forma-
tion of extra stock or rupture in supply. When the
fow does not have enough velocity, transit time is
long and the system is not capable of serving the
customers when they need it.
It is well understood that material handling im-
provement may have positive efects over produc-
tion. However, it is not only production, but the way
the employees see the new situation. When the per-
ception is favorable, the benefts are possible; if not,
behavioral issues can emerge. Evaluations are im-
portant when interventions into the work environ-
ment are implemented. The present work is specif-
cally related to materials handling management. By
means of efective materials handling management,
the companys operational performance may im-
prove (Chopra & Meindl, 2001; Rosenbloom, 2003)
aiming to satisfy the customers or meet their expec-
tations in terms of their needs, desires and demands
(Oliver, 2010; Stock & Lambert, 2001).
The case study related in this work was performed
in an automotive industry located in the northeast-
ern part of Rio Grande do Sul State of Brazil. It was
founded more than 50 years ago and is classifed as
a large-sized company since it has more than 2000
employees. This region contains a cluster of indus-
tries of metal-mechanic, automotive and metallurgi-
cal sectors that in its majority belong to production
chains which demand a high internal performance
level from their partners.
The company in question, afer analyzing produc-
tion fow as a whole, identifed that among other
measures it would be necessary to improve mate-
rials handling management in the manufacturing
process. This was motivated by the observed de-
lay in forklifs service and their high maintenance
cost. Forklifs were used both for parts handling
and transportation and to assist in tooling changes,
which many times resulted in excessive setup time
leading to production delays. Changes were made
in the materials handling process to address these
concerns.
The main objective of this case study was to evalu-
ate internal customers satisfaction levels afer the
change. In order to do this, it was necessary to iden-
tify the factors that explain overall satisfaction; to do
it, open-ended questionnaires were applied. The re-
spondents 26 people directly linked to daily mate-
rials fow were requested to identify the atributes
and unfold them into sub-factors which represented
the internal process in more details. The identifed
atributes were cost, safety in service, service reli-
ability and agility. Afer this step, a second question-
naire with close-ended questions was applied to the
same respondents in order to evaluate performance
satisfaction at each factor and sub-factor and also
overall satisfaction. The questions requested the re-
spondent perception about the improvement per-
ceived or not afer the interventions.
The collected data were analyzed with multiple re-
gressions. Data analysis indicated that the factors
agility, service reliability and cost are able to explain
overall satisfaction. In addition to that the satisfac-
tion level of most of internal customers with the new
materials handling management system is equal or
even superior when compared to the previous one.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Material Flow
Materials handling makes production fow possible,
as it gives dynamism to static elements such as ma-
terials, products, equipments, layout and human re-
sources (Stock & Lambert, 2001; Chopra & Meindl,
2001). Groover (2001) highlights that despite its im-
portance, materials handling is a topic that frequent-
ly is treated superfcially by the companies. Howev-
er, other authors have perceived its relevance. Dur-
ing the period in which Shingo (1996) contributed to
the development of the Toyota Production System,
he developed the Production Function Mechanism
that proposes to explain how the production phe-
nomenon happens.
Shingo (1996) indicated that, in the West, production
was treated as a process of a sequence of operations.
In the Production Function Mechanism, the concepts
are directly related to a production analysis focus.
A process analysis consists of an observation of the
production fows that turn raw materials into fnal
products. From this concept, the author highlights
that the main analysis is the one associated with the
process, because it follows the production object.
The analysis of the operations comes later because
it focuses on production subjects (operators and ma-
chines). When making this distinction, it is possible
to perceive the relevance of materials handling.
21
Beyond the basic function of movement, it is also rel-
evant to cite the functions of storage and information
transfer, which occurs simultaneously and has both
strategic and operational dimensions. Organizations
are relying on information systems using tools like
Electronic Data Interchange (EDI), or similar infor-
mation technology resources, to gain in precision
and reliability, in the interchange, and availability of
information (Lambert & Stock, 2001; Laudon & Lau-
don, 2006, Milan, Basso & Preto, 2007).
According to Asef-Vaziri & Laporte (2005) an impor-
tant proportion of manufacturing expenses can be
atributed to material handling and the most criti-
cal material handling decisions in this area are the
arrangement and design of material fow paterns.
This idea is shared by Ioannou (2002), which argues
that an important aspect of any production system
is the design of a material handling system (MHS)
which integrates the production operations
The relevance also occurs in another context. Ballou
(1993) states that the storage and handling of goods
are essential among the set of logistics activities, and
their costs can absorb 12% to 40% of its costs. In addi-
tion, the MHIA estimates that 20% to 25% of manu-
facturing costs are associated to handling (Groover,
2001, p. 281). According to Sule (1994) apud Sujono
& Lashkari (2006), material handling accounts for
3075% of the total cost of a product along the pro-
duction chain, and efcient material handling can be
responsible for reducing the manufacturing system
operations cost by 1530%.
For Bowersox and Closs (1996), the main logistic re-
sponsibility in manufacturing is to formulate a mas-
ter-program for the timely provision of materials,
components and work-in-process. Stevenson (2001)
understands that logistics (including materials and
goods fowing in and out of a production facility as
well as its internal handling) has become very im-
portant to an organization to acquire competitive
advantages, as the companies struggle to deliver the
right product at the correct place and time. The main
challenge is to promote, with low cost, a fow whose
velocity allows the execution of manufacturing pro-
cess with the expected satisfaction level.
2.2 Elements and Characteristics of a Material Han-
dling System
Materials handling study requires that several ele-
ments are considered. The frst is a handling system
project, which covers activities of sequencing, veloc-
ity, layout and routing (Groover, 2001). In order to
complete the analysis, Groover (2001) recommends
analyzing the material itself (or object) to be trans-
ported. Therefore, it suggests the classifcation of
Muther and Hagan (apud Groover, 2001), which
considers: (i) physical state (solid, liquid, gas); (ii)
size (volume, length, width, height); (iii) weight; (iv)
condition (hot, cold, dry, dirty, sticky, adhesive); (v)
risk of damage (weak or strong); and (vi) safety haz-
ards (explosive, fammable, toxic, corrosive, etc.).
Additionally, the issue of equipment and devices
must be examined. Dias (1993) adopts the term
moving to describe what, in this article, is called
management (handling) to adopt the terminology of
Groover (2001). When dealing with equipment, Dias
(1993) presents a broad classifcation that covers
fve categories: (i) transporters (belts, chains, rollers,
etc.); (ii) cranes, hoists and lifs; (iii) industrial ve-
hicles (carts, tractors, pallet transporters, forklifs);
(iv) positioning equipment, weighing and control
(ramps, transfer equipment); and (v) stents and sup-
port structures (pallets, holders, reels).
According to Chan, Ip & Lau (1999), a key factor in
material handling system design process is the se-
lection and confguration of equipment for material
transportation. This is directly related to this study.
According to Gurgel (1996), the equipment should
be selected based on some preliminary consider-
ations: take into account the utilization of the factory
foor and its load capacity; examine the dimensions
of doors and corridors; pay close atention to ceiling
height, identify the environmental conditions and
their nature, avoid the use of combustion engines
traction equipments in storage of food products,
meet all safety standards to protect humans and to
eliminate the possibility of incurring criminal and
civil liabilities arising from accidents, and examine
all kinds of available energy options and their capac-
ity to supply required movements.
The right choice of equipment and location of work-
in-process is fundamental for the optimization of a
companys manufacturing capacity. Bowersox and
Closs (1996) state that a critical factor in positioning
stocks in process is a balance between convenience
and consolidation to create efciencies when the
stock fows along the value chain.
The importance of layout, which defnes the place-
ment of equipment and, consequently, restricts pos-
sible routes and sequencing, can be perceived by the
22
prominence that the subject is treated in production
management literature. The analysis of the relation-
ship between layout studies and material handling,
however, does not receive much atention in the
same literature. This lack of atention can be seen in
works like Gaither and Frazier (2002), Chase, Jacobs
and Aquilano (2006) and Slack, Chambers, Harland,
Harrison and Johnston (1997).
Finally, the systems and information technology
constitute essential factors for materials handling
management. Stair and Reynolds (2006), Laudon
and Laudon (2006) and OBrien and Marakas (2007)
support the study of fundamentals and general prin-
ciples of information systems.
In order to improve the performance of distribution
operations and, in this specifc case, the internal ma-
terial handling process, it is important to consider
both human and technical factors (Chakravorty,
2008). In this sense, this study assesses the internal
customers perception of a material handling pro-
cess improvement.
With regard to the atributes to be considered in a
material handling system, according to Kulak (2005),
efective use of labor, providing system fexibility,
increasing productivity, decreasing lead times and
costs are some of the most important factors infu-
encing selection of material handling equipment.
These factors are directly related to some atributes
found in the present study.
The determination of a material handling system
involves both the selection of suitable material han-
dling equipment and the assignment of material han-
dling operations to each individual piece of equip-
ment (Sujono & Lashkari, 2006). Hence, according to
Sujono & Lashkari (2006) material handling system
selection can be defned as the selection of material
handling equipment to perform material handling
operations within a working area considering all as-
pects of the products to be handled. In this context it
is important to mention that, in this study, only the
selection of the material handling equipment was
considered.
3. PROBLEM AND INTERVENTION DESCRIP-
TION
The frst sub-section describes the situation prior to
the intervention, identifying the problems that were
found. The second describes the factors that moti-
vated the change. The third describes the changes
and the situation afer its completion. Besides vari-
ables and sub-variables, customers overall satisfac-
tion regarding the implemented changes was also
evaluated.
3.1 Situation Prior to the Intervention
This study was conducted in the manufacturing sec-
tor of an automotive company. The manufacturing
sector is responsible for almost all of the supply of
assembly lines, including the components that go
through a pre-assembly process before proceeding
to fnal product assembly. In this sector are concen-
trated cuting and bending tools and dies required
for components manufacturing to assembly lines.
The whole process runs with the aid of forklifs. Of-
ten, the setup time is equal to or higher than the time
needed for parts manufacturing. This situation, cou-
pled with the cost of downtime, demonstrates the
importance of the tooling exchange process.
Besides helping in the execution of setups and carry-
ing out internal transport managed by an electronic
scoreboard installed in the factory roof, forklifs also
performed activities for transporting materials be-
tween pavilions. When executing this last activity,
the forklifs ofen travelled on uneven roads, which
caused great bouncing, burdening maintenance cost
for equipment wear or premature breakage.
Ofen, when a forklif leaves its workplace to transport
a container between pavilions, delays in machines
setups are generated, causing unnecessary costs and
stress on the forklif operator. The operator could do
litle besides feel forced to increase the speed during
the route, creating risks of accidents with personal in-
jury and / or materials damage. This activity as well
as the studied process relate to Goldrats Theory of
Constraints (TOC) to seek botlenecks and reduce or
eliminate them (Goldrat; Cox, 2004).
Although there were enough forklifs to meet the
demand from the manufacturing sector, many times
it was not possible to meet immediately the manu-
facturing needs due to reasons like long distances
to travel and frequent maintenance due to excessive
use of the equipment. This directly afected internal
customers satisfaction.
The presented problem was: how to increase inter-
nal customer satisfaction, while stabilizing or de-
creasing forklifs maintenance cost?
3.2 Change Motivators
23
Due to development of new markets, manufacturing
demands for a large variety of components and fnal
product assemblies increased. This demand growth
led to speed increases and changes in how materials
and tools were being handled and transported in or-
der to monitor manufacturing requirements.
With these changes and demands for manufacturing
to atain the companys goals, there was also pres-
sure for growth and lack of tolerance with forklif
operators, since the work did not always run quickly
and with quality. Additionally, forklif maintenance
costs were increasing, demanding sometimes exces-
sive spending that jeopardized the budget. The dis-
satisfaction and demotivation of forklif operators
was notorious, and an increase was also noticed in
the number of collisions between the equipments.
Finally, boxes and containers were unsatisfactorily
stored in the hallways together with the machines to
atempt to reduce production interruptions.
3.3 The Changes and the Situation afer the Imple-
mentation
One suggested solution was to rent two forklifs as
a way to solve the problem. But this only served to
sofen it, and brought a larger cost to the company.
It was realized then that it was not the quantity of
equipments that was going to solve the problem but
the way material handling was being executed in re-
lation to the necessity of the presented changes.
From this observation, processes and material fows
were mapped and separated in two ways: (i) verti-
cal movements which make greater eforts and litle
ground movement; and (ii) horizontal movements
that rely on traction to travel longer distances, in-
cluding transport out of the work units.
Another proposed solution was to use a tractor tow-
ing small wagons, forming a kind of train. Ballou
(1993) states that this approach is more economical
for larger volumes that must be moved over long
distances along the same route.
Several cargo (pallets) units were constructed with
special wheels, fted with suspension coupled to
support the material weight and traverse the gaps
between the pavilions. Aferwards, several cages
were made to be used for holding the parts that go
through the processes of bath and painting. More
robust containers for heavier and less delicate parts
storage were also constructed.
The next step was to create spaces (pit stops) for
pallets with their mobile parts on each workstation.
In order to the truck driver to know when he could
transport material, it was necessary to create an iden-
tifcation system. It was decided that every time that
the operator fnished the process in his station, he
would put on the packaging a green sign indicating
that the container would be ready to be transported
to the next production step. The truck driver, when
removing a flled container, should replace it with
an empty one in the vacant post.
Tests were conducted with a timetable for the train
passage, but this alternative did not meet the need
for fexibility in case of emergencies (pieces to tech-
nical assistance and replacement of damaged mate-
rials in the assembly process).
It was then decided to set a path that would follow
the manufacturing process sequence. To inform the
train operator of some urgency, a mobile phone was
given to him. Thus, the supervisor could commu-
nicate with the operator instantly when there were
critical parts and / or components to be collected.
Afer the changes were completed, it was necessary
to evaluate their impacts. This study evaluated inter-
nal customers satisfaction level with the new mate-
rials handling and transporting confguration.
4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.1 Company Characterization
The studied company, Marcopolo S/A., is one of the
main bus body producers in the world. Founded in
1949, in Caxias do Sul, the company is divided into
four business units: (i) bus, with bodies of Marcopo-
lo and Ciferal brands; (ii) LCV, with complete mini-
bus under the Volare brand; (iii) plastic products,
with MVC brand; and (iv) parts and components,
with service parts for the company brands and parts
for other segments of the Syncroparts brand.
The company maintains a technology transfer con-
tract with the Iveco SPA. The transferred technology
from the lines Midi bus, Low Entry and High Decker
was made in the factory of CBC-Iveco in China. Cur-
rently, Marcopolo has a representative ofce called
Marcopolo Changzhou Ofce at Changzhou and has
also been developing a joint venture agreement with
Tata Motors in India. This study took place only at
the Brazilian facility.
4.2 Objectives
24
The present study had as its objective to evaluate, in a
systematic way, the impact of the implemented changes
in materials handling management on the internal cus-
tomers perceptions at the manufacturing department in
Marcopolo S/A. unit located in Caxias do Sul RS.
To reach this objective, the following specifc objectives
were established: (i) describe the changes in material
handling processes at the company; (ii) evaluate inter-
nal material handling fow in manufacturing, verifying
the improvements; and (iii) analyze internal custom-
ers satisfaction levels relative to the new system.
4.3 Data Collection
The sample was the people directly involved with
the daily fow of materials, selected intentionally. The
respondents held positions as leaders, supervisors,
forklif drivers and warehouse operators, enabling a
comprehensive view of the problem. Data collection
for the satisfaction survey was divided into two stages.
The frst step was an open-ended question survey (Ap-
pendix 1). Respondents were asked about their per-
ceptions regarding the changes in materials handling
emphasizing evidence of the improvements, problems
still identifed afer change implementation and sug-
gestions for the relevant atributes in question. Two
criteria were used to defne factors and sub-factors
from the obtained answers: i) the factor must be cited
by respondents of all positions (leaders, supervisors,
forklif drivers and warehouse operators); ii) the num-
ber of times that the criterion has been cited by the 26
respondents. Table 1 shows the evaluated factors, their
defnitions and the associated sub-factors.
Table 1 Factors and sub-factors of satisfaction survey
N. Factors Factors Description Sub-factors
1 Cost
Monetary value available to maintain the
operation: expenditures with periodic
maintenance linked to forklifts use
Mechanical shutdowns
Electrical shutdowns
Corrective painting
2
Safety in
Service
Identifes forklifts operators conduct on new
handling and internal transport way
Safety in handling
Tooling storage
3
Service
Reliability
Identifes manufacturing satisfaction level in
terms of reliability
Effcient routing
Operators autonomy
Operators performance
and availability
4 Agility
Identifes the time spent with tool exchange
coupled handling (discounting the times
associated with the machine, such as loose and/
or fx arrays or tools)
Setup agility
Material handling
quickness
Tooling handling
quickness
Performance improvements (current state vs. status
quo) were measured using the following scale: 1 =
much worse, 2 = worse, 3 = same, 4 = beter and 5 =
much beter. For instance, the employee was asked:
Comparing previous and current procedures for
handling and internal transport, how do you assess
the costs related to mechanical downtime? To an-
swer the question, the options of the scale mentioned
above were ofered. At this point it is important to
highlight that the study was evaluating the respon-
dents perception, starting from the assumption that
they had knowledge enough (even empirical) be-
cause they are directly involved in the process.
5. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Once the new situation was established, data collec-
tion started followed by analysis and presentation of
the results. The data were tabulated in order to obtain
an average percentage and standard deviation of over-
all satisfaction in relation to the factors and sub factors
presented during sampling. Table 2 shows the results.
25
Table 2 Internal satisfaction survey
ATTRIBUTE Average S Sat.>=4 Sat.=3 Sat.<=2
COST 3,58 0,69 69,2% 26,9% 3,8%
Mechanical Shutdowns 3,74 0,93 73,1% 19,2% 7,7%
Electrical Shutdowns 4,05 0,78 80,8% 19,2% 0,0%
Corrective Painting 3,74 0,81 65,4% 34,6% 0,0%
SAFETY IN SERVICE 3,88 0,65 80,8% 15,4% 3,8%
Safety in Handling 3,92 0,84 80,8% 15,4% 3,8%
Tooling Storage 3,73 0,68 80,8% 15,4% 3,8%
RELIABILITY OF THE SERVICE 3,35 0,75 38,5% 57,7% 3,8%
Safety in Handling 3,23 0,65 30,8% 65,4% 3,8%
Operator`s Autonomy 3,81 0,90 69,2% 26,9% 3,8%
Operator`s Performance and Availability 3,73 0,78 53,8% 46,2% 0,0%
AGILITY 3,50 0,58 46,2% 53,8% 0,0%
Setup Time 3,36 0,58 26,9% 73,1% 0,0%
Material Handling Quickness 3,81 0,85 53,8% 46,2% 0,0%
Tooling Handling Quickness 3,48 0,67 34,6% 65,4% 0,0%
OVERALL SATISFACTION 3,54 0,58 50,0% 50,0% 0,0%
Considering satisfaction levels equal to or higher than
4 in Table 2, it is identifed that the overall satisfaction
percentage shows that 50% of the respondents noticed
improvements in the process afer its implementation
(answers 4 in the scale that was used).
The data were analyzed with the aid of multiple lin-
ear regressions for each of the studied factors, as well
as for general satisfaction. The results are shown as
follows.
5.1 Cost Analysis
Regression analysis for the cost sought to understand
how much it was infuenced by each of its sub-fac-
tors. Regarding factor and sub-factors relationships,
corrective painting was not statistically signifcant.
The satisfaction in relation to the cost factor was
considered as the dependent variable and the rat-
ings of each of the other two remaining sub-factors
were treated as independent variables. Expression 1
was obtained. The value of R
2
= 0.63 indicates that
expression 1 is able to explain 63% of the variability
in cost assessments.
Cost = 0.36 x electrical shutdowns + 0.31 x mechani-
cal shutdowns (1)
The p-values found for the terms were less than 0.19.
This should be considered as an exploratory result
related to the signifcance of the sub-factors.
5.2 Safety in Service Analysis
Regression analysis for safety in service tried to
understand how it was infuenced by each of its
sub-factors. For this factor, tooling storage was not
statistically signifcant. Then, the satisfaction in re-
lation to the safety in service factor was considered
the dependent variable and the rating of safety in
handling was treated as the independent variable
and the expression 2 was obtained. The value of R
2

= 0.73 can state that the second expression is able
to explain 73% of the variability in safety in service
evaluations.
Safety in Service = 0.66 x safety in handling(2)
The p-value found for the term was less than 0.0001,
which allows us to assert that it is signifcant with a
probability of at least 99.9%.
5.3 Service Reliability Analysis
Regression analysis for service reliability atempted
to understand how it was infuenced by each of its
sub-factors. For this factor, efcient routing, opera-
tors performance and availability did not show sig-
nifcance, so the only sub-factor that was considered
as an independent variable was operators autonomy
according to expression 3, where we can see service
reliability as the dependent variable. The value of R
2

= 0.68 can state that expression 3 is able to explain
26
68% of the variability in service reliabilitys assess-
ments.
Service Reliability = 0.69 x Operators autonomy (3)
The p-value for the term was less than 0.0001, which
allows us to assert that it is signifcant with a prob-
ability of at least 99.9%.
5.4 Agility Analysis
Regression analysis for agility aimed to understand
how this was infuenced by each of its sub-factors.
In this factor all sub-factors presented statistical sig-
nifcance and were treated as independent variables
in expression 4 where we observe agility as the de-
pendent variable. The value of R
2
= 0.89 can state that
expression 4 is able to explain 89% of variability in
assessments of agility.
Agility = 0.40 x tooling handling quickness + 0.31 x
setup agility + 0.19 x material handling quickness (4)
The p-values found for the terms were less than 0.17,
so the results should be considered exploratory.
5.5 Overall Satisfaction Analysis
The regression analysis for overall satisfaction
aimed to understand how this was infuenced by ev-
ery factor. Analyzing the relation among the factors
and overall satisfaction, safety in service was not
statistically signifcant, so it was not considered as
an independent variable in expression 5, where it is
possible to observe that the three remaining factors
are the independent variables and overall satisfac-
tion is the dependent variable. The value of R
2
= 0.89
shows that the expression 5 is able to explain 89% of
the variability in overall satisfaction ratings.
Overall Satisfaction = 0.65 x agility + 0.38 x service
reliability 0.12 x cost (5)
The p-values found for the terms were less than 0.17,
so the results should be considered exploratory.
According to Malhotra (2006), the weights of each at-
tribute can be calculated from an expression obtained
in Multiple Regression. To calculate the relative weight
of each atribute, it is necessary to get an overall satis-
faction value when it assumes its maximum (=5) and
the others are at the minimum value (=1). Afer that,
the values found with the atribute in maximum and
minimum must be subtracted. This procedure was
used to transform the regression models coefcients
in the percentages shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Factors that afect overall satisfaction
57%
33%
10%
Agility
Service reliability
Cost
By these results, it was possible to develop a model of the perceived satisfaction with internal material handling
process redesign (activities). The model is presented in Figure 2 and it has as its base the factors and sub-factors
that presented statistical signifcance.
27
Figure 2 Model of satisfaction of the implemented improvements
6. CONCLUSION
Due to constant complaints because of failures in
service and also low speed in material transport,
the company was motivated to innovate and/or im-
prove internal processes that could increase the ef-
fciency of services to manufacturing. The basis of
the implanted system was the concept of stock on
wheels, practicing materials transport with the aid
of a tug internally named train. The tug pulls the
wagons with more load than forklifs (previous sys-
tem), maximizing travels and loads through a spe-
cifc route.
With the new system implementation the need to
assess its real impact in relation to the expected im-
provements emerged. From internal customers eval-
uation there was an increase in overall satisfaction.
This increase can be explained by a greater agility
(57%), greater reliability in service (33%) and lower
cost (10%). The results identifed the signifcant sub-
factors and their impacts on the described factors.
Besides internal customer satisfaction improvement,
which was evidenced by the present study, there was
an efective improvement in the internal material
handling. The improvement in material fow caused
by the use of the proposed vehicle increased the ac-
curacy of materials delivery time inside the compa-
ny. Operations became safer. The system used was
able to evaluate the perceptions of the implemented
changes, as well as to identify factors and sub-fac-
tors that infuenced satisfaction increase. These im-
provements in the company operations resulted in
new subsidies to perform similar studies.
In relation to specifc established objectives, changes
in material handling processes at the company were
described (frst specifc objective); internal material
handling fow in manufacturing was evaluated and
improvements were made (second specifc objec-
tive); and internal customers satisfaction levels re-
lated to the new system were analyzed (third spe-
cifc objective).
This way, the present works general objective was
atained: to evaluate, in a systematic way, the impact
of the implemented changes in materials handling
management through internal customers percep-
tions, evidencing a relevant contribution to the com-
pany and to the studied area.
It is important to highlight that there were no losses
of jobs although some employees were reallocated.
One operator from the central warehouse was trans-
ferred to vehicle driving and his previous job was
divided between two other people from the same
department. Regarding inventories, there was a re-
duction in work-in-process; however there were no
changes in raw material and fnished goods stocks
28
because the purchasing policy and customer deliv-
ery time were not modifed.
7. REFERENCES
Asef-Vaziri, A. & Laporte, G. Loop based facility planning and
material handling. European Journal of Operational Research, n.
164, 2005, p. 111.
Ballou, R. H. Logstica empresarial. So Paulo: Atlas, 1993.
Bowersox, D. & Closs, D. Logistical management: the integrated
supply chain process. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996.
Chakravorty, S. S. Improving distribution operations: Implemen-
tation of material handling systems. International Journal of
Production Economics, n. 122, 2009, p. 89106.
Chan, F. T. S.; IP, R. W. L. & Lau, H. Integration of expert sys-
tem with analytic hierarchy process for the design of mate-
rial handling equipment selection system. Journal of Materials
Processing Technology, n. 116, 2001, p. 137-145.
Chase, R.; Jacobs, F. & Aquilano, N. Administrao da produo e
operaes. So Paulo: McGraw Hill, 2006.
Chopra, S. & Meindl, P. Supply chain management strategy, plan-
ning and operation. Englewood Clifs: Prentice-Hall, 2001.
Dias, M. A. Administrao de materiais: uma abordagem logstica.
So Paulo: Atlas, 1993.
Gaither, N. & Frazier, G. Administrao da produo e operaes. So
Paulo: Thompson, 2002.
Goldrat, E. M. & Cox, J. The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Im-
provement. 3
rd
ed. Great Barrington, MA: The North River
Press, 2004.
Groover, M. P. Automation, Production Systems, and Computer-Inte-
grated Manufacturing, 2
nd
ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 2001.
Gurgel, F. A. Administrao dos fuxos de materiais e de produtos. So
Paulo: Atlas, 1996.
Ioannou, G. An integrated model and a decomposition-based
approach for concurrent layout and material handling sys-
tem design. Computers & Industrial Engineering, n. 52, 2007,
459485.
Kulak, O. A decision support system for fuzzy multi-atribute se-
lection of material handling equipments. Expert Systems with
Applications, n. 29, 2005, p. 310319.
Laudon, K. C. & Laudon, J. P. Management information systems. 6
th
edition. Hardcover: Prentice Hall, 2006.
Machline, C. A new kind of operations inventory: the pre-assem-
bled kit. Journal of Operations and Supply Chain Management,
1(1), 2008, p. 24-28.
Malhotra, N. K. Marketing research: an applied orientation. 5
th
edi-
tion. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2006.
Milan, G. S., Paiva, E. L. & Preto, M. R. A relevncia do servio
ao cliente como alternativa diferenciao e ampliao da
competitividade das empresas. In: Milan, G. S., & Preto, M.
R. (org.). Gesto estratgica da produo: teoria, cases e pesqui-
sas. Caxias do Sul: EDUCS, 2006, p. 261-282.
Milan, G. S., Preto, M. R. & Basso, L. C. Um estudo de caso sobre
o funcionamento de um armazm automatizado. REAd Re-
vista Eletrnica de Administrao, 12(7), 2007, p. 1-28.
OBrien, J. A. & Marakas, G. M. Administrao de sistemas de infor-
mao. So Paulo: McGraw Hill, 2007.
Oliver, R. L. Satisfaction: a behavioral perspective on the consum-
er. 2
nd
edition. New York: Irwin/McGraw-Hill, 2010.
Paiva, E. L., Carvalho Jr., J. M. & Fensterseifer, J. E. Estratgia de
produo e de operaes: conceitos, melhores prticas, viso de
futuro. Porto Alegre: Bookman, 2004.
Rosenbloom, B. Marketing channels: a management view. 7
th
edi-
tion. New York: Cengage Learning, 2003.
Shingo, S. O sistema Toyota de produo: do ponto de vista da engen-
haria de produo. Porto Alegre: Bookman, 1996.
Simecs Sindicato das Indstrias Metalrgicas, Mecnicas e de
Material Eltrico de Caxias do Sul. Institutional site. Retrieved
August 7, 2008, from htp://www.simecs.com.br.
Slack, N., Chambers, S., Harland, C., Harrison, A. & Johnston, R.
Administrao da produo. So Paulo: Atlas, 1996.
Stair, R. M. & Reynolds, G. W. Princpios de sistemas de informao.
So Paulo: Thompson, 2006.
Stock, J. R. & Lambert, D. M. Strategic logistics management. 4
th
edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001.
Stevenson, W. J. Administrao das operaes de produo. Rio de
Janeiro: LTC, 2001.
Sujono, S.; Lashkari, R.S. A multi-objective model of operation
allocation and material handling system selection in FMS
design. International Journal of Production Economics, n. 105,
2007, p. 116133.
29
APPENDIX 1: OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONNAIRE
1 - What is your general perception in relation to
material handling process afer the changes?
2 - What are the main evidences of the improve-
ments?
3 - What problems are still identifed afer the im-
plementation of the change?
4 - What are the main factors afected?
5 - What are the main issues identifed in each factor?
APPENDIX 2: CLOSE-ENDED QUESTIONNAIRE
How do you evaluate material handling system at
the company afer the established changes?
Please, use the scale below to answer the following
questions:
1 = much worse
2 = worse
3 = equal
4 = beter
5 = much beter
1. How do you evaluate the cost of operations?
1 2 3 4 5
1.1 How do you assess the occurrence of mechani-
cal shutdowns?
1 2 3 4 5

1.2 How do you assess the occurrence of electrical
shutdowns?

1 2 3 4 5

1.3 How do you evaluate the need for corrective
painting?

1 2 3 4 5

2. How do you rate safety in service?
1 2 3 4 5

2.1 How do you assess the safety in handling?
1 2 3 4 5
2.2 How would you rate tooling storage?

1 2 3 4 5

3. How would you rate the reliability of the service?

1 2 3 4 5

3.1 How do you assess route efciency?

1 2 3 4 5

3.2 How do you assess the operators autonomy?

1 2 3 4 5

3.3 How do you assess operators performance and
availability?

1 2 3 4 5

4. How do you assess the agility of operations?

1 2 3 4 5

4.1 How do you evaluate the setup time?

1 2 3 4 5

4.2 How do you assess material handling quick-
ness?

1 2 3 4 5
4.3 How would you rate the tooling handling
quickness?

1 2 3 4 5

5. What is your overall assessment of the situation
afer the changes?
1 2 3 4 5
30
AUTHORS BIOGRAPHY
Guilherme Bergmann Borges Vieira is a professor and researcher at the Universidade de Caxias do Sul Bra-
zil. In 1997 he received a Master degree in Port Management and Intermodal Transportation at Universidad
Pontifcia Comillas de Madrid. Currently he has Ph.D. in progress at Universidade Federal do Rio Grande
do Sul (PPGEP/ UFRGS). Areas of interest are logistics, port management, international physical distribution
and international management.
Giovana Savitri Pasa is a professor and researcher at the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul Brazil.
In 2004 she received the Dr. Eng. degree in Industrial Engineering at Universidade Federal do Rio Grande
do Sul (PPGEP/ UFRGS). Areas of interest are operations management, production planning and control,
simulation and logistics.
Maria Beatriz Nunes de Oliveira Borsa is Product Launch Coordinator at GKN do Brasil Ltda. In 2009 she
received a Master degree in Materials Science and Engineering (PPGEM) at Universidade Federal do Rio
Grande do Sul. Currently she has Ph.D. in progress also in Materials Science and Engineering (PPGEM) at
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Areas of interest are materials development, process and project
management.
Gabriel Sperandio Milan is a professor and researcher at the Universidade de Caxias do Sul Brazil. In 2006,
he received a Ph.D. degree in Industrial Engineering at Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (PPGEP/
UFRGS). Areas of interest are relationship marketing, customer retention and service quality.
Alberto Pandolfo is an expert in Business Logistics at Marcopolo S/A. He has bachelor degree in Business
Administration from Universidade de Caxias do Sul, MBA in Business Logistics at the same university and
is currently pursuing MBA in Accounting at Universidade Anhanguera. He has coordinated several interna-
tional projects related to internal logistics in countries such as Colombia, Portugal, Egypt and China. Areas of
interest include logistics, process development, people management and project management.

9136 20599 1 PB PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

9136 20599 1 PB PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MATERIALS HANDLING MANAGEMENT:

You might also like